Techdirt

Over the past decade, we've talked about music industry lawyer Chris Castle and his bizarre interpretation of reality a few times. He insists that anyone supporting the legal sharing of content via Creative Commons is "self-serving shilling for the self-absorbed on the short con," which I'm sure must have sounded clever in his mind. A key target for Castle and his friends is that Google is the representation of all that is evil in the music industry. It's a convenient foil. Castle and his friends see Google lurking behind anything that's not like the old days, similar to the way that adults freaked out that pinball machines were destroying the minds of the youths in earlier generations.Castle's latest claim, however, is positively crazy. Not only is he upset about the EU Parliament has agreed to reopen Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive for discussion, he's decided that the only reason they did so must be due to a criminal conspiracy by Google, for which he is demanding an investigation.

Heimdal PRO blocks attacks that antivirus doesn’t spot. How? It silently works in the background to filter all your incoming and outgoing internet traffic and block malware communication. This way you can go about your business, while your computer is shielded from 2nd generation malware, such as banking Trojans and ransomware. With this limited time offer, you get to protect 4 PCs for only $45.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Despite the FBI finally admitting it had greatly exaggerated the number of encrypted devices it can't get into, FBI Director Chris Wray keeps pushing the "going dark" theory to whoever will listen. This time it was NBC's Lester Holt. In an interview during the Aspen Security Forum, Wray again hinted he was moving towards an anti-encryption legislative mandate if some sort of (impossible) "compromise" couldn't be reached with tech companies. (Transcription via Eric Geller.)

New York State and the nation's second biggest cable provider (Charter Spectrum) aren't getting along particularly well. Early last year, Charter Spectrum was sued by New York State for selling broadband speeds the company knew it couldn't deliver. According to the original complaint (pdf), Charter routinely misled consumers, refused to seriously upgrade its networks, and manipulated a system the FCC used to determine whether the company was delivering advertised broadband speeds to the company's subscribers (it wasn't).Charter has tried to use the FCC's net neutrality repeal to claim that states can't hold it accountable for terrible service, but that hasn't been going particularly well.Meanwhile, Charter is also facing heat from the state after the State Public Service Commission found that Charter routinely mislead regulators about its efforts to meet conditions affixed to its $89 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. As part of that deal, Charter was supposed to expand service to "145,000 unserved and underserved residential housing units and/or businesses within four years." But the company was fined $2 million after regulators found it repeatedly tried to pretend it had expanded services to areas that weren't actually upgraded.Things have only gotten uglier from there. Last week, the NY PSC accused the company of gaslighting its customers after it repeatedly tried to tap dance around merger obligations despite repeated fines. The company promised a "universe of synergies" ahead of the deal, but consumers only received even higher prices and even worse customer service than the company was already known for:

Too often Techdirt writes about changes in copyright law that are only for the benefit of the big publishing and recording companies, and offer little to individual creators or the public. So it makes a pleasant change to be able to report that South Africa's efforts to update its creaking copyright laws seem, for the moment, to be bucking that trend. Specifically, those drafting the text seem to have listened to the calls for intelligent fair use rights fit for the digital world. As a post on infojustice.org explains, a key aspect of copyright reform is enshrining exceptions that give permission to Internet users to do all the usual online stuff -- things like sharing photos on social media, or making and distributing memes. The South African text does a good job in this respect:

You will recall that earlier this year we discussed the University of Illinois' attempt to trademark bully an alumnus out of making orange and black shirts that read "Make Illinois Great Again." The whole story surrounding the school's actions is somewhat more complicated than it might appear. Part of the issue is that the shirts in question used the image of Chief Illiniwek, something of a mascot the school abandoned a decade ago, and one that was the source of controversy given its cartoonish mannerisms as related to Native American tribes. So, when the school first objected to Ted O'Malley's trademark application, and then later filed suit against him, you should understand that it was done as the school remains under public pressure to disavow the previous use of this imagery. All of that being said, claims that the school's trademark gives it the right to control the word "Illinois" on all apparel were obviously silly.But trademark bullying works, as we've stated many times in the past. And it tends to work all the more when the bully has a large war chest to fund its legal team and the victim is a much smaller, much less well-funded entity. Such appears to be the case with O'Malley, who has settled with the school and essentially agreed to its demands in return for a measly $7,500 payout.

Update: A quick correction/clarification here. The hacked texts in questions were from Manafort's daughter, rather than Manafort himself, but included texts between Manafort and his daughter, as well as other texts about Paul that his daughter sent or received. Wikileaks, for its part, says it didn't publish the texts because they weren't verified. Except that multiple people confirmed the legitimacy of those texts including Paul Manafort himself. The point of the article still stands.We just wrote about why it would be a dangerous move for press freedom for the DOJ to prosecute Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents. In that post, we noted that even if you think Julian Assange is a horrible human being and proactively trying to undermine US electoral sovereignty, the mere act of publishing leaked documents should not be criminal. But, that doesn't mean that Assange can't be hypocritical and one-sided. Obviously, during the 2016 election, when Wikileaks helped spread both John Podesta's emails and the DNC's emails, some wondered if Assange would have published similar messages from the Trump campaign. While publicly Assange insisted he disliked both campaigns equally, other reports and leaked (of course) chat messages certainly suggested otherwise, as did at least some of his apparent attempts to ingratiate himself with Trump insiders, including asking Don Jr. to leak his father's tax returns to Assange to "dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality."Of course, when faced with an opportunity to post the equivalent of the Podesta emails on the Trump side, it appears that Assange decided not to do it. Public records-savant Emma Best recently chose to publish the entire collection of leaked Manafort family texts in a searchable database. These texts have long been out there and available if you knew where to look -- and had received widespread reporting in early 2017. However, beyond the excerpts, they were not fully available in a way that was searchable for most users.Best communicated with Wikileaks, who admitted that it had the entire collection as well, but chose not to publish it -- which certainly can be read as hypocrisy on Assange's part, considering the similarities with the Podesta emails. As Best notes in discussing the decision to publish these in a more accessible format:

We just wrote about why it would be a dangerous move for press freedom for the DOJ to prosecute Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents. In that post, we noted that even if you think Julian Assange is a horrible human being and proactively trying to undermine US electoral sovereignty, the mere act of publishing leaked documents should not be criminal. But, that doesn't mean that Assange can't be hypocritical and one-sided. Obviously, during the 2016 election, when Wikileaks helped spread both John Podesta's emails and the DNC's emails, some wondered if Assange would have published similar messages from the Trump campaign. While publicly Assange insisted he disliked both campaigns equally, other reports and leaked (of course) chat messages certainly suggested otherwise, as did at least some of his apparent attempts to ingratiate himself with Trump insiders, including asking Don Jr. to leak his father's tax returns to Assange to "dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality."Of course, when faced with an opportunity to post the equivalent of the Podesta emails on the Trump side, it appears that Assange decided not to do it. Public records-savant Emma Best recently chose to publish the entire collection of leaked Manafort texts in a searchable database. These texts have long been out there and available if you knew where to look -- and had received widespread reporting in early 2017. However, beyond the excerpts, they were not fully available in a way that was searchable for most users.Best communicated with Wikileaks, who admitted that it had the entire collection as well, but chose not to publish it -- which certainly can be read as hypocrisy on Assange's part, considering the similarities with the Podesta emails. As Best notes in discussing the decision to publish these in a more accessible format:

One thing we've talked about for a long time at Techdirt is the importance communities for media outlets, including our own. These days, it feels like a lot of media companies are giving up on this work altogether and outsourcing it to social media platforms — but that means foregoing some of the most powerful aspects of the internet. This week, we're joined by Josh Millard, who recently took over MetaFilter, to talk about building online communities and not relying on Facebook.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

Let's be clear: I know that many people -- perhaps entirely reasonably -- really, really dislike Julian Assange and Wikileaks. For some people that feeling has been there for years. For others it's related directly to the role that Wikileaks played in helping to release hacked emails designed to impact the 2016 election. There certainly appears to be plenty of evidence that, at the very least, Wikileaks was in contact with Russian operatives and made plans to try to get and release documents at times that would have the maximum impact on the election. As I've said over the years, I don't have much respect for Assange who, among other things, often appears to be a total hypocrite. However, I have also made clear that prosecuting him and Wikileaks for doing nothing more than publishing leaked documents would set a horrible precedent. I feel similarly about the DNC's silly lawsuit as well.The DOJ has apparently has been trying to indict Assange for more than 8 years now with nothing to show for it yet. In large part, this is because what Wikileaks has done is really no different than what any news publication does when publishing leaked documents. There may be laws against leaking certain documents to the press, but the First Amendment completely bars lawsuits against the recipients of leaks then publishing them.This is in the news again as reports are brewing that Ecuador is expected to withdraw asylum for Assange, possibly handing him over to British officials, who may in turn hand him over to the US. When I discussed this on Twitter recently, a bunch of people responded angrily that Assange deserves to be in jail because of his role in the 2016 election. But when pressed to explain how what he did was any different than the NY Times or CNN in publishing leaked documents, people go quiet -- or the say something silly like "but those other news orgs are based in fact." But, that's a silly argument. First of all, nothing that Wikileaks has published has been shown to be false or faked (the DNC made some claims to that effect but no one ever presented any evidence or pointed to any faked documents). Second, given the propensity of some -- including the President of the United States -- to argue that the NY Times, CNN, the Washington Post and others are "fake news," do we really want to be setting the precedent that if you publish something false you can get prosecuted for it?Earlier this year, Avi Ascher-Schapiro published a piece for the Committee to Protect Journalists focusing on the DNC's silly case against Wikileaks, but much of it could apply to a federal prosecution as well:

It appears the state of Texas is offering a limited "right to be forgotten" in county courts. A few years back, the state appeals court had to get involved and remind the county no such right exists in the Texas, much less the rest of the states Texas seems to be embarrassed to be associated with. At the center of the case was an expungement order for an attorney accused of forging other attorneys' signatures on court filings.While his case may have been expunged, expungement only covers the official record. This would remove info from government databases. Texas law also provides for the removal of info from certain sites reliant on public records (mugshot sites, background check services), but the law does not go so far as to demand news sites and search engines purge themselves of articles related to now-expunged criminal acts.A lower court decided to drag Google into this, demanding it de-index anything covering the expunged crime. Google did not comply and the state appeals court reversed the lower court's order, finding it not so much a violation of the First Amendment (which it is), but that it skirted due process by not allowing Google and the sites being de-indexed to argue against the removal order in court.Eugene Volokh has again tracked down a similar -- and similarly wrong -- order from a Texas county court.

Still holding on to that old cassette collection? Yeah, they're cool. Sure. But at some point you're going to need to digitize them or risk losing them entirely to time. This $21 Audio Cassette to MP3 Music Converter hooks up to your laptop and allows you to convert tapes to MP3 files for easy digital access. Once converted, you can then transfer to your phone or tablet for sharing any time. Don't let that collection go to waste!Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

For no clear reason at all, the Republicans* on the House Judiciary Committee released a video on YouTube earlier this week praising themselves for stopping online sex trafficking via FOSTA/SESTA. It's... quite something.The video makes a number of blatantly false claims from various members of the House Judiciary, but let's focus mainly on the claims of Ann Wagner, whose original bill kicked off the process that became FOSTA/SESTA. She's been spreading moral panic nonsense about sex trafficking and the internet for ages, so it's no surprise that she continues to do so. But, at one point in the video she states:

Last week, the FCC shocked many by sending the Sinclair Tribune merger to merger review purgatory. It was shocking, in part, because the FCC had spent the better part of the last year comically neutering decades-old media consolidation rules specifically at Sinclair's behest, only to suddenly turn around and find fault with Sinclair's logic, relegating the merger review to an administrative law judge (historically the death knell for similar deals). Many of these rules have traditionally had bipartisan support, since they prevent any one company from dominating local media and distorting public discourse.In a statement, FCC boss Ajit Pai indicated that the company appears to have misled regulators in its bid to pretend the deal would fall under the national media ownership cap, which bans any one broadcaster from serving more than 39% of the population. Again, a stark and sudden reversal for an agency that, until last week, had been taking an ax to decades-old media consolidation rules specifically to help grease the skids for the controversial deal, which would have given Sinclair ownership of more than 230 stations reaching 72% of the public.Sinclair's merger is controversial thanks to the company's comically-slanted and highly misleading local news coverage, which recently made headlines thanks to a viral Deadspin video showing the facts-optional claptrap the broadcaster forces local stations to air in somewhat creepy synchronicity. But Pai kept going out of his way not only gutting media ownership rules, but re-instating obscure bits of regulation specifically to help Sinclair tiptoe around such limits (odd for a guy that complains endlessly about "burdensome, unnecessary regulation").Pai's efforts to aid Sinclair were so blatant, he's now facing an investigation by the FCC's nonpartisan Inspector General into whether he coordinated the assault on the rules with Sinclair.In short, for Pai to retreat from his Sinclair cronyism, the company must have done something notably idiotic. That something was subsequently laid out in the full FCC order (pdf) shoveling merger review off to an administrative law judge, something traditionally seen as fatal for such deals. The order notes that Sinclair, as some consumer groups had noted, had been trying to tap dance around remaining ownership rules by offloading some broadcasters to shell companies, subsidiaries and Sinclair partners at highly-discounted rates, hoping to then reacquire those companies after the deal was approved.The FCC's order is decidedly polite about it, but repeatedly notes how Sinclair tried to bullshit its way around the fact it had business ties to many of these potential partners and would, in many instances, still be running these broadcast stations post merger. Many of these partners had absolutely zero experience running local broadcasters, and were usually tied to Sinclair in some capacity. Like Steven Fader, CEO of a car dealership, who the FCC notes would have received a decidedly "below market value" deal as part of Sinclair's plan:

Time for another reminder that the UK is not some sort of America analogue -- one that favors pomp and circumstance to opinionated bumper stickers and stabbings to shootings. The UK government may say nice things about free speech, but when it all comes down to it, its citizens might as well be colony residents still seeking to break free from the Kingdom's confines.Sir Cliff Richard has just won a lawsuit against the BBC, securing a large payout from the journalistic entity for its outrageous act of journalism. Eriq Gardner of The Hollywood Reporter has the details.

We've just written about growing discontentment among open access advocates with the role that the publishing giant Elsevier will play in monitoring open science in the EU. That unhappiness probably just went up a notch, as a result of the following development, reported here by Nature:

Keep your friends close, but your Facebook friends closer.

It's a law named after a crime victim, so you already know it's going to be questionable. Federal lawmakers are floating a bill aimed at undermining some of the Fourth Amendment just handed back to us by the Supreme Court. At stake is cell site location info, although in a much more limited amount and in much more limited form. The EFF's Dave Ruiz has more details.

Back in February we wrote about an absolutely horrible ruling out of a New York court by Judge Katherine Forrest that argued embedding an infringing tweet could be an act of infringement on its own. As we pointed out, if this ruling holds, it would undermine some of the basis of how the internet itself works. The issue here gets a bit into the weeds of both how the internet and how copyright law works. Embedding something on the internet, at a technical level, is really no different than how linking on the internet works. And it's long been established that if you link to infringing content, that alone should not be considered a separate act of infringement. But is embedding? At a very basic level, this is the difference between the two:

A Canadian appeals court has decided in favor of greater privacy protections for Canadians. The case involves the discovery of child porn by a computer technician who was repairing the appellant's computer. This info was handed over to the police who obtained a "general warrant" to image the hard drive to scour it for incriminating evidence.Yes, "general warrants" are still a thing in the Crown provinces. The same thing we fought against with the institution of the Fourth Amendment exists in Canada. These days, it has more in common with All Writs orders than the general warrants of the pre-Revolution days, but there's still a hint of tyrannical intent to them. (Again, much like our All Writs orders, which date back to 1789.) "General warrants" are something the government uses when the law doesn't specifically grant permission for what it would like to do:

The Complete Learn To Scrum Bundle is five courses designed to teach you all about this agile project management style. You'll learn about Sequential, Concurrent and Agile project management, and when to use each approach. You'll also learn about Agile Scrum tools like story cards, product backlog, scrum boards and burn-down charts. Each course offers you PDU or contact hours that you can apply to earning your PMI-ACP certification. This bundle is on sale for $39.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

So I'm a bit late to this, as Stephen Fry released a podcast "documentary" entitle Great Leap Years a few months back. I've just started listening to it recently, and it hits on so many of the points and ideas that I've tried to address here on Techdirt over the course of the past 20 years, but does so much more brilliantly than anything I've done in those ~70,000 posts. That is, in short, if you like what we write about here concerning the nature of innovation and technology, I highly recommend the podcast, after having just listened to the first two episodes.And just to give you a sense of this, I'm going to quote a bit from near the end of the 2nd podcast. This isn't revealing any spoilers, and the storytelling is so wonderful that you really ought to listen to the whole thing. But this so perfectly encapsulates many of my thoughts about why people freaking out about "bad stuff" happening on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and more are in the midst of a a moral panic not unlike those we've seen before. None of this is to say that we should ignore the "bad stuff" that is happening, or try to minimize it. But it does suggest that we take a broader perspective and recognize that, maybe, this is the way humans are, and it's not "this new technology" that's to blame.The episode itself is about the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg (which also wonderfully works in some details about Gutenberg's real name that I had not known). And after going through the details of Gutenberg and his invention, discusses how the Catholic Church was initially overjoyed at the invention, noting that it could print and sell indulgences faster (which is an important call back to the 1st episode...). There's a brief discussion of how the Church suddenly realizes its "mistake" and tries to fight back, and then this:

The rise of cord cutting shows no sign of slowing down. As cable providers continue to raise prices yet refuse to seriously address their dismal customer service, nasty billing fraud problems and skyrocketing prices, more users than ever are flocking to a new variety of cheaper, more flexible streaming alternatives. Some cablecos have attempted to get out ahead of this trend by offering their own competing services (AT&T's DirecTV Now, Dish Network's Sling TV), but most traditional cable providers seem intent on just doubling down on the same bad ideas that started the cord cutting trend in the first place.The result is an obvious one. A new report indicates that more than 5.4 million cable TV subscribers are expected to cut the cord this year, resulting in a $5.5 billion loss in revenue for traditional cable TV providers like AT&T, Comcast, Charter and Verizon. That hit comes in comparison to the 4.8 million traditional pay TV subscribers lost in 2017, and the 3.8 million lost in 2016. It's all thanks to this mysterious thing known as competition:

The Trump Administration can claim a historic first, even though it would probably rather not do so. As the result of multiple FOIA lawsuits -- whose arguments were strengthened by Trump's tweets and statements from the House Intelligence community -- the DOJ has released a stack of FISA warrant applications. This has never happened in the 30-year existence of the FISA court.The 412-page document [PDF] (which is actually four warrant applications and their accompanying court orders) detail the FBI's surveillance of Carter Page, alleged agent of a foreign power. The affidavits detail Page's connections to Russia, as well as the FBI's reliance on contested Steele dossier to build its case.There are a lot of redactions that obscure Page's ties to Russian government officials, intelligence officers, and business owners, but there's enough left out in the open to draw some inferences. What's most interesting about the warrant applications is how often they rebut assertions made by Devin Nunes and his supposedly-damning memo.Nunes portrayed this investigation as an abuse of surveillance powers to spy on the Trump campaign. Unfortunately for this member of the Intelligence Oversight Committee, the documents make it clear surveillance of Page didn't begin until after he had left his position as an adviser to Trump.That doesn't mean Trump is off the hook in terms of collusion. The documents also refer to other members of Trump's campaign team "perhaps" being involved with Russian officials and intelligence services during the campaign.The affidavits also undercut Nunes' and Trump's claims the FBI misled the FISA court about the origins of the Steele Dossier. Both claimed the FBI did not disclose the fact this dossier had been funded by Trump's political opponents. Footnotes attached to the very first warrant request expressly state Steele ("Source #1") had been hired by to dig up dirt on Trump's Russian connections by an outside law firm.

This week, both our winning comments on the insightful side come in response to our post about various stories of cops causing huge problems for restaurants in retaliation for some invented or vastly exaggerated slight. In first place, it's an anonymous anecdote:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2013, as new leaks made it clear that NSA surveillance went even further than everyone thought, we got disturbing comments from NSA boss Keith Alexander about the need to "collect it all" (which also happens to be the name of our CIA card game which you can still preorder...) and from a former top agency lawyer who blamed the 9/11 attacks on civil libertarians. But the backlash grew too, with the EFF filing a massive lawsuit along with several other groups, and one congressional rep trying to strip the NSA's funding while another aimed to repeal the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2008, a closer look at the Viacom/YouTube lawsuit revealed Viacom's focus on finding out what Google employees uploaded as a sneaky way to hopefully eliminate some DMCA protections. Apple launched its much expected lawsuit against Mac clone maker Psystar, and a UK law firm went big on the pre-settlement shakedown game with over 100 lawsuits against file sharers. A court ruling about bots in World of Warcraft set a dangerous copyright precedent, and we saw some amusing DRM irony when Ubisoft broke its own game then fixed it by issuing a third-party DRM cracking tool as an official patch. And, sadly, despite an earlier rejection, the EU brought up copyright extension again and voted to bump the term of performance rights up from 50 to 95 years.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2003, while the MPAA was fighting a bill just to spite the EFF, the RIAA was going nuts with its subpoenas to identify file sharers at a rate of about 75 per day. Two Catholic Universities quickly caved and turned students over to the RIAA, and while some studies suggested that file sharing was diminishing, there were also a lot of people passionately defending it.

Back in May, we wrote about Suburban Express, the comically awful bussing company that works the University of Illinois-Champaign to Chicago circuit and is owned by Dennis Toeppen, being sued by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. Why it was sued by the state will require you going through the backlinks above, but can more succinctly be expressed in the following math equation:

Oh my. What fun it must have been for this officer to find out his lies were contradicted by his partner's body camera footage. Thanks to these lies, Officer Joshua Bates of the San Jose Police Department is now former officer Josh Bates, target of a federal civil rights lawsuit. But his troubles began during the traffic stop, culminating in this (first) judicial vindication of Cosme Grijalva.

Carl Malamud published the law on his PublicResource.org website. And for that he got sued. The problem was, in posting the Code of Federal Regulations he also included the various enforceable standards included as part of those Regulations. This displeased the organizations which had developed those standards (SDOs) and who claimed a copyright in them. So they sued Public Resource for infringement, and in a terrible decision last year Public Resource lost. Public Resource then appealed, and this week Malamud's organization won a reversal of the district court decision.The decision by the D.C. Circuit in American Society for Testing and Materials v. PublicResource.org stands as a win for those who would choose to republish the law, even when their doing so may involve republishing standards created by non-governmental SDOs that were then incorporated by reference into controlling law. Although one can never presume to read the tea leaves at oral argument, it did seem as though the court was extremely uncomfortable with the idea that someone could be punished for having published the law. But the particular way the court addressed the copyright and trademark claims brought against Public Resource for it having done so is still worth further discussion. Disclosure: I helped file an amicus brief on behalf of members of Congress supporting Public Resource's defense, and amicus briefs on behalf of law professors at the district court.On the copyright front, it is important to first note how the court did NOT resolve the question of whether republishing standards incorporated into law constituted copyright infringement. A threshold question in any copyright infringement case is whether there's any copyright that could have been infringed at all, because no copyright = no infringement, and with no infringement the case goes away. One way there might not be a copyright is if employees of the federal government had worked on developing the standards, like the ones at issue in this case, since under § 105 of the copyright statute, works by federal government employees are ineligible for copyright protection. But in its decision the D.C. Circuit dismissed this argument, finding that Public Resource had effectively waived it at the district court below.

Over the years we've obviously written tons of stories about the rich and powerful hiring shameless lawyers who try to browbeat and intimidate news organizations (both large and small) out of publishing embarrassing stories. That's one of the many reasons why we support strong anti-SLAPP laws across the country, as an essential protection for a free press. Media companies and journalists tend to be some of the biggest supporters of free speech and anti-SLAPP laws as well for this exact reason. But what happens when rich and successful journalists are suddenly the subject of unflattering stories as well? Apparently, they throw out their principled support of free speech and hire a sketchy law firm that celebrates its history of "killing stories."Lachlan Cartwright, over at the Daily Beast, has a story about the law firm Clare Locke, who not only specializes in killing stories, but appears to brag about why we should chip away at the First Amendment. After opening with a story about how a 60 Minutes producer hired the firm, Cartwright mentions some of the other high profile journalists who have hired the firm:

So, just last week we had a post by Kevin Bankston from the Open Technology Institute arguing for some basic steps towards much greater data portability on social media. The idea was that the internet platforms had to make it much easier to not just download your data (which most of them already do), but to make it useful elsewhere. Bankston's specific proposal included setting clear technical standards and solving the graph portability project. In talking about standards, Bankston referenced Google's data transfer project, but that project has taken a big step forward today announcing a plan to let users transfer data automatically between platforms.The "headline" that most folks are focusing on is that Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter are all involved in the project (along with a few smaller companies), meaning that it should lead to a situation where you could easily transfer data between them. As it stands right now, the various services let you download your data, but getting it into another platform is still a hassle, making the whole "download your data" thing not all that useful beyond "oh, look at everything this company has about me." Making a system where you can easily transfer all that data to another platform without having to manage the transition yourself or being left with a bunch of useless data is a big step forward -- and a huge step towards giving users much more significant control over their data.But the really important thing that this may lead to is not so much about transferring your data between one of the giant platforms, but hopefully in opening up new businesses which would allow you to retain much greater control over your data, while limiting how much the platforms themselves keep. This is something we've talked about in the past concerning the true power of data portability. Rather than having it tied up in silos connected to the services you use, wouldn't it be much better if I could keep a "data bank" of my data in a place that is secure -- and where if and when I want to I can allow various services to access that data in order to provide the services I want?In other words, for many years I've complained about how we've lost the promise of cloud computing in just building up giant silos of data connected to the various online services. If we can separate out the data layer from the service layer, then we can get tremendous benefits, including (1) more end-user control over their own data (2) more competitive services and (3) less power to dominate everything by the biggest platforms. Indeed, we could even start to move towards a world of protocols instead of platforms.Of course, this is only one step in that direction, but it's a big one. And, yes, it's notable that the big platforms are all working on this together, since it has the potential to undermine their own powerful position. But it's absolutely the right thing for them to do, and hopefully we'll start to see much more interesting services pop up out of this. If it only ends up allowing people to shift between Google and Facebook that will be a failure. If it enables new services and more end user control over data -- forcing various services to compete and provide better value in exchange for accessing our data -- that would be a huge step forward in how the internet functions.

The Complete Raspberry Pi Hacker Bundle will teach you all you need to know about Raspberry Pi 3 for only $19. You'll learn how to easily prepare an SD card and flash it for any OS and how to work with GPIO pins and learn how to programmatically control them with Python. You'll be building a gaming system to play old Nintendo, Sega, and Playstation games, a personal digital assistant using the Google Assistant API, your own GPS tracking system, and much more.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Wireless carriers are coming under increasing fire for failing to protect their users from the practice of SIM hijacking. The practice involves posing as a wireless customer, then fooling a wireless carrier to port the victim's cell phone number right out from underneath them, letting the attacker then pose as the customer to potentially devastating effect. Back in February, a man sued T-Mobile for failing to protect his account after a hacker pretending to be him, ported out his phone number, then managed to use his identity to steal thousands of dollars worth of cryptocoins.It didn't take long for numerous customers to complain they were the victim of the same scam, and for T-Mobile to send out a warning to users encouring them to add a few layers of additional security to their account.But the problem appears to be even worse than originally believed. A new report takes a closer look at the problem, exploring how identity thieves use SIM hijacking to do everything from cleaning out bank accounts, to stealing valuable Instagram usernames and selling them for Bitcoin. The process isn't particularly complicated, and more often than not involves the social engineering of a cellular carrier's support employees. The entire process tap dances around protections like two-factor authentication, and highlights the peril of relying too heavily on a single cell phone number for identity verification in apps and other services.Carriers, for their part, don't much like to publicly talk about the problem. In part because it's occasionally their employees that are helping to facilitate the scams for a little extra cash:

While the United States walks away from the concept of net neutrality, India just passed some of the toughest net neutrality rules in the world. You'll recall that net neutrality became a hot topic over in India when Facebook tried to roll out a walled-garden service known as "Free Basics." Free Basics provided users free, "zero rated" (usage cap exempt) access to a limited selection of curated content and services chosen by Facebook, something Facebook claimed would immeasurably benefit the nation's poor farmers.In reality, many pointed out that Facebook's breathless concern for the poor really just masked the company's attempt to corner the ad markets in developing nations. Content providers didn't like Facebook being the one to dictate which services would or wouldn't be included for obvious reasons. Others (like Mozilla) noted that if Facebook was truly interested in connecting developing nations with broadband, it could, you know, actually do that. Others still weren't keen on another white, Western billionaire proclaiming that only he had the magical solution to the nation's problems.Facebook's response to these concerns wasn't what you'd call impressive, with Zuckerberg insisting those opposed to his plans were simply hurting the poor. That behavior in turn only galvanized activist support for tougher net neutrality rules in the country, the foundations for which were laid last year. There too Facebook engaged in some shady behavior, at one point trying to trick Indian citizens into supporting its plans and opposing meaningful net neutrality protections.That didn't work, and last week the Indian government put the finishing touches on what, by most measures, are considered some of the toughest net neutrality rules in the world:

Once again, we find lawmakers who seemingly championed "strong privacy" rules like the GDPR suddenly freaking out when they realize such laws might apply to government bodies as well. Once again, we have Jason Smith at Indivigital to thank for highlighting the latest mess. This time it involves Irish lawmakers trying to figure out how different government agencies can share data between those agencies in order to provide better services. But, here's the problem: doing so without "consent" would seem to violate the basic concepts of the GDPR, so the Minister of State for Public Procurement, Open Government and eGovernment, Patrick O'Donovan, decided to try to take the easy way out and say that the government should be able to "infer" consent, if someone made use of the government service in the past:

Readers here will likely be aware of the tortured history of Texas A&M's "12th Man" trademark. If you're not, the term describes the fans of the team and their tendency to make so much noise to effect on-field play during games. A&M, which holds a trademark for the term, has made a name for itself as a trademark bully, going around and threatening basically anyone that uses anything remotely like that term, even as it has in the past infringed on the IP of others. The school has been so successful in locking down this term for use in anything sports related that the Seattle Seahawks, the NFL team that also refers to its fans as its "12th Man", pay a licensing fee to the school to do so.And now that licensing arrangement appears to be part of the reasoning A&M's legal team used to sue a soap company based in Washington State for using the "12th Man" term as well. In the school's filing, embedded below, it argues that because the soap company resides in the same state as the Seahawks, and because the company's soap product "12th Man Hands" includes an image of a football on the packaging, this makes it an infringement on its trademark, despite soap and athletics not being in related marketplaces. The USPTO somehow actually bought this six-degrees-of-licensing-separation argument.

The schadenfreude dripping from this case is positively delicious.This story of the spectacularly swift rise and fall of a profitable drugs-and-guns bust comes to us via C.J. Ciarmella at Reason, who has his own particularly sumptuous line summing up the debacle.

Last week I received the following email with my name and a very, very, very old password that I haven't used in probably at least a decade in the subject line (even though I'm not longer using it, I'm editing it out of this because... it's still weird):

More "fake news" legislation is on the way. The Cambodian government -- borrowing US presidential rhetoric and bad ideas from neighboring Vietnam (tbf, the Vietnamese government has bad ideas to spare) -- is going to censor local press outlets under the pretense of protecting the public.

Leaving private voter or customer data easily accessible on a public-facing server is the hot new fashion trend. You'll recall that it's a problem that has plagued the Defense Department, GOP data firm Deep Root Analytics (198 million voter records exposed), Verizon's marketing partners (6 million users impacted), Time Warner Cable (4 million users impacted), and countless other companies or partners that failed to implement even basic security practices. And it's a trend that shows no sign of slowing down despite repeated, similar stories (much of it thanks to analysis by security researcher Chris Vickery).This week yet another pile of private voter data was left publicly accessible for anybody to peruse. According to analysis by Kromtech Security’s Bob Dianchenko, a Virginia-based political consulting and robocalling company by the name of Robocent publicly exposed 2,600 files, including voter file spreadsheets (including voter phone numbers, names, addresses, political affiliations, gender, voting districts and more) and audio recordings for a number of political campaigns.When Diachenko contacted the firm, he was told that they were a "small shop" and that "keeping track of everything can be tough." In a statement to ZDNet, which first reported the latest exposure, Robocent co-founder Travis Trawick did his best to downplay the exposure by insisting the data was stale, and publicly-available anyway:

Pay what you want for the Complete UI/UX Design Bundle and get an introduction to Photoshop, InDesign, and Illustrator. If you beat the average price, you unlock access to 7 more courses. They cover topics like typography, Adobe XD, After Effects CC, and more.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

For somewhere close to a decade we've talked about journalism professor Jay Rosen's important concept of "the view from nowhere." This is the "professional" stance that many media operations (mainly big time newspapers) take in reporting the news, in which they stupidly refuse to actually take a stand on truth and instead tend to report the news in a "he said/she said" fashion, never bothering to tell you which one is actually true. Indeed, we've long argued that if journalists want to actually be relevant, they need to have a point of view, and that point of view should be about what is true, not granting "equal weight" to both sides of a story that doesn't deserve it. Taking the side of truth and pointing out lies for what they are is not bias, it's real journalism.If you want a recent example of the moronic "view from nowhere," which is so frequently practiced by the NY Times, entitled Trump Now Says He Accepts U.S. Intelligence Reports on Russian Election Meddling. There's nothing factually incorrect there, but it's... complete bullshit in terms of what is actually happening. Yes, Trump says that, but an accurate report would explain why that's almost certainly a false statement from Trump given everything else he said about the situation during his press conference with Putin. Joshua Benton succinctly summarizes just a couple of the many, many problems with the NY Times "view from nowhere" approach:

You'll recall that even back in 2014 a lot was being made about Putin's troll factories, or the oodles of hired underlings paid by the Russian leader to fill the internet with bile and disinformation twenty-four hours a day. Much of what we originally learned about these disinformation shops came from Russian whistleblowers like Lyudmila Savchuk. Savchuk spent two months employed by the operation and was so disgusted that she quit, launched an anti-propaganda social activist campaign, and successfully sued the Russian government for one Ruble in a bid to expose the effort.Over the last few years we learned that these online propaganda efforts were much larger and sophisticated that originally believed. Reports as early as 2015 had already highlighted how these also extended well beyond just routine shitposting and clever memes and into the real world; like the time Russia went so far as to open a museum in Manhattan to try and spin its "annexation" of Crimea.Many tried to downplay the impact and scope of these efforts in the following years, insisting that no real damage could come from a bunch of marginally-competent Russians with broken english shitposting on the internet (a narrative that doesn't quite gel with the DOJ indictment or the whistleblower accounts that have emerged since, showing the efforts were notably more nuanced and sophisticated than initial 2014 and 2015 reporting suggested).This week, a new report from Buzzfeed made it clear that 2016's disinformation wave wasn't just constrained to a few warehouses in St. Petersberg. Back in 2016, reports emerged suggesting that some entrepreneurial "teens in the Balkans" had been part of a broad effort to spread disinformation in support of Trump ahead of the 2016 election. The stories at the time identified more than 100 pro-Trump websites being run from a single town in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. At the time, these efforts were largely brushed aside as the result of local teens eager to cash in on Facebook monetization of garbage information:

Internet filtering -- whether it's for copyright reasons or "for the children" [INSERT FAVORED OFFENSIVE CONTENT HERE] -- doesn't work. It certainly never works as well as advertised. And when those ads are being paid for with your tax dollars to push filters that make the internet worse for the sake of making the internet "safer," you'd probably like to ask for a refund.The UK is implementing porn filters and adding in fun stuff that's less definable like "extremist content. " Governments all over Europe want the biggest service providers to filter out whatever happened to be offending them this legislative session. Most recently, it was copyright infringement. Fortunately, the EU's proposed filtering legislation died before it could ruin the internet, but its unwieldy corpse is bound to be reanimated by seething publishers and performance rights groups.But, hey, maybe a metric ton of anecdotal evidence isn't enough to convince you filtering doesn't work. Maybe you need more than failure after spectacular failure to erase your faith in harder nerding/legislative busywork. Maybe you're cool with overblocking and will simply close your eyes (and your browser) when the filter doesn't do any filtering at all.If you're skeptical, there's always science. A recently-released research paper confirms what everyone (except politicians, moral majority types, legacy content industries...) already knows: internet filters aren't worth the bits they're expending.

Earlier this year, we wrote about EPIC, makers of the popular Fortnite game, picking up the baton from Blizzard to pretzel copyright law such that it believes it can sue those that cheat in its game for copyright infringement. This belief centers on the claim that these cheaters break the EULA, despite the fact that no actual copying occurs when breaking a EULA. To make PR matters worse for EPIC, the company managed to sweep up a fourteen year old in its lawsuit-blitz. Despite the teenager supposedly being quite brazen in his use of cheats, and in his communications to others about how to cheat in Fortnite, I had assumed that EPIC would find a way to quietly back away from this particular suit, given how shitty the optics would be. It did the opposite, pursuing the case and seeking a summary judgement after the teenager failed to respond. The court refused, however, citing a letter to the court from the teen's mother, who argued that the suit against her son was overkill and, critically, that the argument over the EULA was null because her minor son couldn't legally enter into such an agreement without her input.Rather than again trying to salvage some PR positivity from any of this, EPIC then decided instead to take on the mother's letter as a legal matter, with its lawyers countering it as a legal argument. EPIC argued that caselaw is clear that such contracts aren't void, even if one party is a minor, so long as that minor enjoyed the benefits of the contract. Unfortunately, the judge in the case has decided that he will not dismiss and will allow this lawsuit to move forward.

As was widely expected, earlier today, the EU Commission brought down its latest antitrust fine against Google, this time for an eye-popping $5 billion. The number gets the attention, but it's worth looking at the underlying details here. This was the result of a two year investigation, specifically into certain bundling practices that Google used concerning Android and some of its apps. When Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager first announced the investigation in April of 2016, she more or less explained where they were headed:

Do you guys remember Hadopi? This French version of a law designed to kick copyright infringers off of the internet essentially ended in 2016, after all kinds of reports showed the program to be an inefficient, unreasonably harsh failure that actually resulted in more infringement rather than less. Well, this travesty probably seems altogether silly here in 2018, given that Hadopi largely targeted filesharing infringement, while the majority of "piracy" these days takes the form of streaming content online rather than downloading it. Those enforcing Hadopi have no real way to track that kind of "piracy", making the whole thing useless.But the French government appears to want to see if it can repeat its mistakes all over again, with reports that it will institute a streaming site blacklist, which will be every bit as effective as Hadopi. Making all of this especially odd is that it comes at a time when so-called pirates in France are increasingly turning to legal offerings and spending gobs of money on them.

The dumpster fire that passes for security and privacy standards in the internet of things space is by now pretty well understood. It's also pretty clear that in this sector, "smart TV" vendors have been among the laziest sectors around in terms of making sure private consumer data is adequately encrypted, and that consumers understand that their viewing habits and even some in-room conversations are being hoovered up and monetized, usually sloppily.Recent studies have found that upwards of 90% of smart TVs can be compromised remotely, and leaked documents have made it clear that intelligence agencies have been having a field day with the lack of security in such sets, easily exploiting paper-mache grade protections in order to use TV microphones to monitor targets without anybody being the wiser.Meanwhile, set vendors and viewing tracking firms continue to do a pretty dismal job clearly explaining to the end user what data is being collected and monetized. The New York Times, for example, recently did a profile piece on a company named SambaTV, whose viewer-tracking software is now collects viewing data from 13.5 million smart TVs in the United States. Owners of these sets will find Samba's Interactive TV software already installed, and are told that the software simply lets you receive handy recommendations and experience TV "in a whole new way":

We've been covering the mess that is electronic voting machines for nearly two decades on Techdirt, and the one thing that still flummoxes me is how are they so bad at this after all these years? And I don't mean "bad at security" -- though, that's part of it -- but I really mean "bad at understanding how insecure their machines really are." For a while everyone focused on Diebold, but Election Systems and Software (ES&S) has long been a bigger player in the space, and had just as many issues. It just got less attention. There was even a brief period of time where ES&S bought what remained of Diebold's flailing e-voting business before having to sell off the assets to deal with an antitrust lawsuit by the DOJ.What's incredible, though, is that every credible computer security person has said that it is literally impossible to build a secure fully electronic voting system -- and if you must have one at all, it must have a printed paper audit trail and not be accessible from the internet. Now, as Kim Zetter at Motherboard has reported, ES&S -- under questioning from Senator Ron Wyden -- has now admitted that it installed remote access software on its voting machines, something the company had vehemently denied to the same reporter just a few months ago. That was then:

SKEYE Nano 2 is the world's smallest camera drone, and boasts an unrivaled flying experience, streaming a real-time first person view of the tightest spaces directly to your smartphone. With adjustable gyro sensitivity and 6-axis flight control system, this tiny drone is easy to control for even the most novice pilots. Heck, if you're just controller-averse, you can even use your phone as a remote control thanks to on-board WiFi. It's on sale for $29. The skies are waiting!Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.